Pages

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Pillory Hillary; Dump Trump (part 1)

It's an interesting thing, being neither on the 'Rabid Right' nor the 'Loony Left'. You get to see the irrational behavior of both sides. And both sides, of course, accuse you of being on the other. And both sides think you should be on their side because you're closer to them than those "wackos" on the other side. And both sides think you're a traitor when you don't agree.

The 800 Pound Gorilla

No.

I've posted before regarding Bernie Sanders and Trump, but haven't commented about Clinton. Largely this is because she's too easy. Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President.

Note that I don't say she's not qualified. Hell, you or I are qualified if we meet the requirements of the Constitution. She's certainly qualified. I won't even get into the details of policy. In her case policy doesn't matter because she's not fit.

I say with 100% confidence that Hillary Clinton is not just a security risk. She has actively and knowingly committed security breaches and if she were anyone else at all she would have been prosecuted already. She has been investigated by the FBI and there is no question that she did what she did. There is no question that it's illegal. Security isn't mitigated by claimed lack of intent. That, along with her repeated attempts to cover it up and mislead and impede the investigation of her illegal activity are far worse than anything Richard Nixon ever did. The difference is that he had the moral character to step down for the good of the office. She does not even have that.

But beyond this incident she has a long history of questionable dealings, special treatment, etc. And from Whitewater forward, the scandals pile up. These aren't just ancient history; they outline a consistent pattern of behavior. It's a lack of judgement that I don't want in a President, and I will not under any circumstances vote for it. You can try to rationalize it, justify it, ignore it, wave it away... but it's not going away. You can't wave it aside any more than you could a spotlight. And if a corrupt system refuses to prosecute her, then she should be figuratively pilloried by the public.

Hillary Clinton is unfit for the Presidency, and I don't need to say any more about her.

Before I talk about that other gorilla in the room, know that I'm pretty much a "right of center" Libertarian. Although I am pro-Life, I'm pragmatic enough to know that we're dealing with legalized abortion now, it's a very difficult, emotional, and divisive issue, and we have some immediate concerns that are more solvable. I'm not "pro" gay marriage either... I just don't care, and I strongly feel that government should get out of the business of declaring what marriages are OK. I take that position on religious grounds, and because responsible adults should not need the permission of a government to marry. Others camp in the same space because they want to get married. That's fine with me... it ain't my business. But generally speaking I'm more comfortable among rational conservatives, and I've been able to identify far more rational conservatives than rational liberals.

I recently posted the Gary Johnson / William Weld ad to a political forum. In my comment, I noted that should either Clinton or Trump be elected, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I will regret not having put the other one in power. It follows that the only vote I could regret would be one that does not at least attempt to break this cycle of cronyism, stupidity, and team party politics that have let Democratic and Republican backroom deal-makers place their interests above ours.

Predictably, this was met with the usual Mantra of the Duopoly, this time from a Trump drone:

There may be more than two people running but one of only two people will be the next President. It's just what it is!

For the record, the last successful third-party candidate was one Abraham Lincoln, who was the first candidate elected from the Republican party... a party that was only six years old at the time of Lincoln's election. Lincoln proved that what is necessary to break out of the two-party trap is the resolute desire of the People. He ran against the injustice of slavery and won. Lincoln, by the way, won with a scant 39.8% of the popular vote. Thirty-nine point eight percent. And yet many people think of him as the greatest president ever elected.

Less than forty percent of the American populace put a man in place who eradicated the worst blight of our civilization, and they did so despite the opinions of the lemmings just like the ones who today fatalistically claim that such things can't happen.

History doesn't look kindly on the opinions of lemmings.

For a Republican to say that a third party cannot win simply reveals his ignorance of his own party's history. Of course it can happen. It takes steadfastness and will. It takes the people who poll in support of a third party to simply vote their conscience instead of their fears. And it takes something to rally behind or against.

I certainly think elections would go much more smoothly and less contentiously with ranked choice (or "instant run-off") voting, but even without it I'm unimpressed by fatalistic "thinking" such as that of my Republican correspondent. As the Southern saying goes, "can't never could". So I responded with an equally stock phrase: "Maybe. Still, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." I wasn't really in the mood to argue with a lemming.